People v. Welt
| Decision Date | 16 July 1958 |
| Citation | 14 Misc.2d 275,178 N.Y.S.2d 313 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondents, v. Michael Arthur WELT, Defendant. |
| Court | New York County Court |
Frank A. Gulotta, Dist. Atty., of Nassau County, Mineola, for respondents.
Leo F. McGinity, Mineola, for defendant.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court of the County of Nassau convicting the defendant of a violation of Section 2146 of the Penal Law (). The defendant was fined $10 after taial.
The defendant owns an automatic laundromat business on Jericho Turnpike, Mineola, Nassau County. On Sunday, March 16, 1958, the defendant's premises were open to the public, as was the defendant's usual practice on Sundays. Customers were observed to be entering the store and operating the coin-operated washing machines and dryers, but neither the defendant, his business associate, nor any of their employees were present. The unique question is presented as to whether a person violates the so-called Sunday laws when he allows customers to enter upon his business premises and wait upon themselves, there being no employee present throughout the day. Regulation of the observance of the Sabbath is governed by Article 192 of the Penal Law. Section 2140 of the Penal Law establishes Sunday as the official day of rest and states the policy of the State as:
'the law prohibits the doing on that day of certain acts hereinafter specified, which are serious interruptions of the repose and religious liberty of the community.'
The statute is not considered as religious in nature but, rather, it affirms the existence of a civil and political institution (People v. Friedman, 302 N.Y. 75, 96 N.E.2d 184). Not all businesses are prohibited on that day, but only those which are serious interruptions of observance of the Sabbath (Penal Law, Section 2140). It is clear that the legislature has the power to regulate working on Sunday and so it follows that that body is the sole judge of the acts which are to be considered Sabbath breaking (People v. Havnor, 149 N.Y. 195, 43 N.E. 541, 31 L.R.A. 689). The acts prohibited, with stated exceptions, are set forth in Sections 2143 (servile labor), 2145 (public sport), 2146 (trades, manufactures, agricultural and mechanical employments), 2147 (public selling), 2148 (serving process), 2151 (processions and parades), 2152 (public entertainment), and 2153 (barbering) of the Penal Law.
Section 2146 of the Penal Law, the statute which the defendant was found guilty of having violated, reads as follows:
'All trades, manufactures, agricultural or mechanical employments upon the first day of the week are prohibited, except that when the same are works of necessity they may be performed on that day in their usual and orderly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People on Complaint of Follar v. Finkelstein
...owner is present (People v. Andob Corp., 25 Misc.2d 542, 543, 206 N.Y.S.2d 89, 90). 15 This distinction was also made in People v. Welt, 14 Misc.2d 275, 178 N.Y.S.2d 313, 16 and a second Welt case 19 Misc.2d 462, 191 N.Y.S.2d 403, aff'd 8 N.Y.2d 961, 204 N.Y.S.2d 916, 168 N.E.2d 854 since t......
-
People v. Abrahams
...(See, also, People v. Rubenstein, 17 Misc.2d 10, 182 N.Y.S.2d 548; People v. Aliprantis, 8 A.D.2d 276, 187 N.Y.S.2d 477; People v. Welt, 14 Misc.2d 275, 178 N.Y.S.2d 313; People v. Andob Corp., 25 Misc.2d 542, 206 N.Y.S.2d 89; Jiffy Auto Laundry v. Monaghan, Sup., 118 N.Y.S.2d 189 (all case......
-
People on Information of Ferguson v. Andob Corp.
...in factually similar situations, simply because the prosecution is brought under different sections of the law, in People v. Welt, 14 Misc.2d 275, 178 N.Y.S.2d 313, the owner of a laundromat had his conviction for performing a trade reversed because he was not physically present, hence was ......
-
People v. Kaplan
...other day of the week. It is for the foregoing reasons that I quite agree with the conclusions reached by Judge Brown in People v. Welt, 14 Misc.2d 275, 178 N.Y.S.2d 313. There, on the precise facts as in this case, the court reversed a conviction in the District Court of Nassau County and ......